M. JANGA REDDY Vs. SHAIK MAHBOOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the hirer is liable for payment of damages for the loss of life of the deceased, Suseela, wife of the first claimant and mother of claimant Nos. 2 to 4?

(2.) THE admitted facts are that on 16.6.1982, at about 7.00 a.m., the bus bearing No. ADT 4787 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed from Moula Ali towards Ghatkesar, went to the extreme left side of the road, ran out of the road and struck down into a ditch, killing the deceased Suseela, a passenger travelling in the bus. The bus belongs to Vijayanti Ballal, the 2nd Respondent in the Tribunal below and the 3rd Respondent in the Tribunal below, Ballal Tourist Corporation has taken the vehicle on hire from the 2nd Respondent in the Tribunal below. The 1st Respondent in the Tribunal below is the driver. It is the case of the Appellant that Suseela, the deceased, was gratuitously taken by the driver, without any authority and that, therefore, the 3rd Respondent -Appellant is not liable for the unauthorised acts committed by the driver. The defence taken by the claimants is that she has paid a sum of Rs. 5/ - as a reward to carry her on the bus and that, therefore, she was authorised to be a passenger. The vehicle is a passenger vehicle, though contracted for and as a result, the hirer is liable for the tortious acts committed by the driver. This plea was accepted by the Tribunal below. PWs 1 and 2 have stated in their evidence that en route the route, the driver took up and set down the passengers, collecting Rs. 5/ - from them. This clearly shows that though the vehicle was contracted to carry the employees to the Electronic Corporation of India Limited, it is used as stage -carriage, by collecting the fare, as a regular service vehicle, by picking up and setting down passengers en route the route. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal below is clearly based on evidence. When once this evidence is accepted, then admittedly, the Appellant, having appointed the first Respondent in the Tribunal below as a driver, is liable for the tortious acts of the driver. Accordingly, the owner is also coextensively liable for the tortious acts of the driver, the 1st Respondent. The Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000/ - and that order has become final as against the insurance company. Therefore, I do not find any illegality warranting interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

(3.) THE contention of the insurance company as argued by Mr. S. Hanumaiah, the Learned Counsel, is that the insurance company is liable and its liability is coextensive with that of the insured, viz., the owner of the vehicle Vijayanti Ballal. The Tribunal has dismissed the O.P. as against the insured; therefore, the insurance company is not liable to make the damages suffered by the hirer. It is alternatively contended that the liability should be limited to Rs. 10,000/ - by operation of Sub -section 2(b) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Act IV of 1939 (for short 'the Act').